Purchase by Sikh father of property in Kenya in name of son-Whether benami transaction-Whether presumption of advancement arises-Whether personal law applies-Kenya Order in Council, 1921, proviso to Article 4.
Case summary
Held (4-7-56):
No presumption of advancement arises in Kenya in favour of a Sikh son of a Sikh father by reason of the father having paid the purchase price of property situate in Kenya and taken a transfer thereof in the name of the son.
Cases referred to: Gopeekrist Gosain v. Gungarpersaud Gosain, (1854) 6 Moo. I.A. 53 (P.C.); 19 E.R. 20; Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh, 42 I.A. 202 (P.C.); Kerwick v. Kerwick, (1920) 47 I.A. 275 (P.C.); Sura Lakshmiyah Chetty v. Kothandarama Pillai, (1925) 52 I.A. 286 (P.C.); Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta, (1928) 55 I.A. 235 (P.C.); Maleksultan v. Sherali Jeraj, (1955) 22 E.A.C.A. 142; Mohamed Hassan v. Nana binti Mzee, (1944) 11 E.A.C.A. 4; In re Amru alias Amar Kaur, Civil Case 117 of 1942 (O.S.); In the estate of Lalitaben, Civil Case No. 864 of 1951 (O.S.); Nawab Azimut Ali Khan v. Hurdwaree Mull, (1870) 13 Moo. I.A. 395 (P.C.); 20 E.R. 599; Uzhur Ali v. Bebee Vital Fatima, 13 Moo. I.A. 232.
Referred to:
Woodroffe and Amir Ali, 9th edn., pp. 711, 712, 841, 842.
RULING:
This is a suit by a Sikh father against his son and another Sikh. The defendants are said to be registered proprietors as tenants in common in equal shares of two plots of land in Kisumu.
